[Accessibility] KDEs position towards CORBA (was: draft
Accessibility meeting minutes 9/15/04)
Gunnar Schmi Dt
gunnar at schmi-dt.de
Thu Sep 16 08:18:54 PDT 2004
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 21:15, John Goldthwaite wrote:
> Accessibility meeting 9/15/04
> Bill- there some issues there that are appropriate for discussion within
> the group but I dont think some are necessarily representative of the
> group. If we felt that all of the topics such AT-SPI and DBUS should be
> published, I think that Harald and I could get together and clean it up.
> The other possibility is to just pull the section.
Actually simply removing this part from the minutes does not seem right to
me as using CORBA as a base for AT-SPI is problematic for KDE based AT
> Bill- these are some of the issues that the group talked about a year
> ago. In their current form, the minutes are not helpful even as a record
> on the meeting.
I have looked into the minutes in order to refresh my memory of these
On February 4, 2004, I had voiced some concerns that using CORBA could be a
problem for KDE based AT clients. (Unfortunately my initial statement in
that meeting is cut off in the middle, so that it makes the impression as
if the bridge from the Qt Accessibility Framework would solve both
directions. However, this bridge is only useful for the server side.)
Some discussions followed whether using DCOP or DBUS instead of CORBA is
possible. However, there was no conclusion about that.
On February 11, 2004, I was not on the meeting. According to the minutes it
was decided to defer the discusion about the low-level IPC protocol that
AT-SPI is based on.
During the following two meetings some aspects about CORBA were discussed
as AT-SPI is currently based on CORBA. Part of the results of these
discussions were that for speed reasons it is necessary to use ORBIT2 (or
a compatible ORB, which to my knowledge does not exist). This would mean
that all KDE based AT clients would need to integrate two event loops into
each other (both the glib and Qt have their own event loop), which sounds
to be non-trivial to me.
I do not want to sabotage the AT-SPI subgroup, but it seemed to be
necessary to me to point out that the problem of KDE based AT clients is
not yet solved. While it is an important step to create a standard like
AT-SPI we should not make something a standard that creates unnecessary
difficulties for writing AT-clients based on the technologies of either of
the two big desktops.
Gunnar Schmi Dt
Co-maintainer of the KDE Accessibility Project
Maintainer of the kdeaccessibility package
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20040916/8d443e1d/attachment.pgp
More information about the Accessibility